Wednesday, July 28, 2010

New HD Poll: 5-pt Conservative Lead (down two)

Yesterday, Harris-Decima released a new federal poll, showing a dip in support for both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Encompassing some of the brouhaha over the census, but not all of it (as it continues today!), this is a possible indication that the issue is beginning to cause some trouble for the government.Harris-Decima's last poll was taken between June 10 and June 20, so it has been about a month. Over that time period, the Conservatives have dropped three points to 31%. The Liberals are down one point to 26%. The gap has narrowed by two points.

The New Democrats are up one to 18%, while the Greens are up two to 12%. The Bloc Québécois is at 10%, down one.

The game is tied in Ontario, as both the Liberals and the Conservatives have 34%. That is a loss of six points for the Conservatives and a gain of two for the Liberals. The NDP is up three points to 18% in the province. Overall, this was a good poll for them.

In Quebec, the Bloc is down four points but still leads very comfortably with 41%. The Liberals are down three to 19% while the Conservatives are up two to 13%. The Greens are at 12% and the NDP is unchanged at 11%.

It's another close race in British Columbia, as the Conservatives have fallen back two points to 31%. The NDP is down two as well to 30%. The Liberals pick up three and stand at 22%, while the Greens are down one to 13%.

The Conservatives and Liberals are tied in Atlantic Canada with 34%, while the NDP is up five points to 22%.

The Tories lead with 55% in Alberta and 39% in the Prairies. The NDP is up 11 points to 34% in the latter region.

The Conservatives win 63 seats in the West and North, 43 in Ontario, 4 in Quebec, and 10 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 120. That is down 14 seats from Harris-Decima's last poll.

The Liberals win 14 seats in the West and North, 46 in Ontario, 14 in Quebec, and 18 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 92, up nine.

The Bloc wins 55 seats in Quebec, unchanged from Harris-Decima's last poll.

The NDP wins 18 seats in the West, 17 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 4 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 41, up five from last time.

While this poll puts the Liberals in a better position than they were in June, this is still not a good poll for them. They aren't doing well enough in British Columbia or Quebec, and need to pull away in Ontario. But the poll is even worse for the Conservatives, as they are only at 31% - way too low for a government. They are struggling in British Columbia and Quebec and need to be doing better in Ontario and the Prairies. With 120 seats, it would be a difficult government for Stephen Harper to run.

The Bloc and the NDP come out shining from this poll. The Bloc, though down slightly from HD's last poll, still make a gain over 2008's election and win a historic-best 55 seats. The NDP also do very well, picking up some seats and breaking the 40-seat barrier.

As the census issue drags on, and Michael Ignatieff continues his bus tour, it will be interesting to see how the numbers change (if they do) over the next few weeks. One wonders if we will end this summer the way we ended last summer, with a Liberal lead. One also wonders if we will enter the fall the same way we entered last fall, with that lead eradicated.

82 comments:

If these regional numbers were accurate (a big if), the NDP would get a lot more than 18 seats in the west. Being in a dead heat with the Tories in BC (compared to being 18 points being in the last election) would mean 4 or 5 pick ups in BC alone and if the NDP was actually in the 30s in Man/Sask. it would mean gaining about 4 seats in Sask as well.

I was a little surprised that QMI actually comes out and says that their online poll is not a random sample. If true, I wonder how that's a credible poll. (I actually thought support would be higher or not just limited to older Cdns)

Regardless, it wouldn't be accurate to make claims about regional tolerance and distance without breaking the regional results down into cities. Heroville never had any muslims living in it when it decided it absolutely needed to ban stoning. I suspect just about every niqab or burka in the nation is in Toronto or Montreal. Those are the communities actually living with it.

BC Voice - Those western numbers look wholly reasonable to me. BC doesn't want to ban anything, ever, and the prairies are always afraid of giving the government power for fear they'll ban something that matters to them.

Banning the burka is yet another example of the government telling the people how to live their lives. It's no surprise that the provinces that support small government would oppose such a measure.

"...online poll is not a random sample. If true, I wonder how that's a credible poll."

ANY online poll is "not a random sample" because there is no e-mail equivalent of a telephone directory. Online polls are based on panels of hundreds of thousands of people who have agreed to be in a panel and respond to surveys. The polls is still credible because those panels are weighted demographically etc... but its not strictly speaking "random" because not every single canadian has an equal chance to be surveyed - you have to be in the panel in the first place.

Ira I support small government and a Burqua ban. Law and order is one of the core responsibilities of government. Getting involved in domestic abuse situations is not outside the realm of "small government".

The Burqua is a weapon used by abusive husbands and fathers to subjugate women. Its widespread use can be directly linked to a lack of respect for women and their rights and as such poses a public safety threat to free born Canadian women from ethnic communities. This is a conspiracy to commit domestic abuse on a vast scale.

It is dehumanizing and psychogically and physically harmful. It has no basis in natural law, Canadian law, or even most readings of Islamic law.

The fact that women "choose" to wear it after a lifetime of brainwashing is of no consequence.

Many victims of domestic abuse "choose" to remain with their abusers. If the state steps in and puts a restraining order between a women and her abuser is that telling her how to live ? Is that big government ?

I don't believe that its the role of the state to regulate peoples wardrobe's. I may not like the idea of a woman wearing a burqa, but I also feel slightly nauseated when i see nuns in old-fashioned habits or Hassidic Jews wearing fur hats and big black coats in the middle of summer when its 35 degrees outside. I don't want the police accosting any of the dozen or so women in all of Canada who wear a burqa on the our streets and handcuffing them unless they disrobe. That to me if a POLICE STATE.

~~Regarding the census, (I've said similar things like this before) I don't think the census will effect the Conservative's poll numbers unless public supports runs roughly 70/30 against what they're doing. There's a lot of uniformity within that core too, so I don't think you'll much shaving off of support for different issues where there may be some overlap either.

~~Re: The Buraq BanIt's absurd. Encroaching on freedom because of your socio-political views about their culture is a pretty obvious violation of the rights of Canadians along with being pretty Orwellian sophistry.

The example provided above though is unintentionally apt. If someone has actually committed an act of violent abuse they go to jail. If someone is mentally incompetant and needed to be made a ward, there is a hearing for that. Otherwise I'm pretty sure the state doesn't do squat and doesn't care to, and good on it for that.

(As if we were actually talking about a crime, and not clothing that is culturally suggestive)

In some ways this even wierder than attempts to ban guns or wearing gang colors, because the law is being wielded against those who are presumed to be the victims of the crimes we don't know exist.

There is a clear difference between the harmful effect of covering your face and the wearing of modest garb or symbols of your religous affiliation.

Ira we don't ban shutgons but we ban people from shooting them at other people in most cases. Don't ban the weapon, ban the action eh ?

Well the burqua is the weapon and the action of abuse is the wearing of it. We're not talking about making it illegal to own a burqua, we're talking about banning the wearing of them in public. The action, not the weapon.

Seriously guys you're defending the indefensible.

The feel of sunlight on the skin is required for proper regulation of sleep, to ward of depression, and to manufacture vitamin D.

Face to face contact is required for the brain to properly and fully understand the emotions of others and connect with them.

The biological harm of the burqua is clear, so it does not arise as a natural impulse to wear one. Nor is it a religious requirement of any historical or mainstream reading of Islam.

I call false consciousness on anyone who claims they CHOOSE to wear a burqua. It is clearly the mark of an abused women who has had the decision made for her.

We would be disgusted by the sight of a man hitting a women in the streets. Or a women wearing chains.

We should be equally disgusted by the sight a man dominating a women by making her wear a burqua as she walks down the street.

"--- The shotgun is a weapon used to hold up convenience stores. Should we ban it, too? Of course not.

I don't think you should assume we're all on the same page with you here."

Yeah... there is a bunch of people out there with an irrational fear of an inanimate object... and not the person holding it.

The simple fact that it can be used as a weapon as a large determining factor in banning it means we should also ban knives, cars, trees and rocks.... Should we ban or register rocks instead of banning stoning to death?

"You've got a point. After all, I think shot guns are meant to be used to aerate lawns."

Then you have 1 thing in common with Pamela Anderson and Peta...

I prefer the shotgun when hunting birds... since I am not fast enough with a net... not to mention it being illegal to use say a .22 in such a situation. (It also works well when I have so many gophers, shoot one, then a shotgun can kill the 5 that are eating that one in a single shot 5 mins later.

The Burqua is a weapon used by abusive husbands and fathers to subjugate women. Its widespread use can be directly linked to a lack of respect for women and their rights and as such poses a public safety threat to free born Canadian women from ethnic communities. This is a conspiracy to commit domestic abuse on a vast scale.You can say the same things about the oppression of high heeled shoes.

It is dehumanizing and psychogically and physically harmful. It has no basis in natural law, Canadian law, or even most readings of Islamic law.Yes, those high heeled shoes are intended to make women into sex objects, and there is no religious requirement to wear them.

The fact that women "choose" to wear it after a lifetime of brainwashing is of no consequence.That sort of view "can be directly linked to a lack of respect for women and their rights" as you put it.

Many victims of domestic abuse "choose" to remain with their abusers.Not many. There are degrees of abuse, and the higher the degree, the less likely the victim will remain with the abuser. There is also the problem of victims having nowhere else to go, and being required to have contact with the abuser due to child visitation and custody orders. I don't think you can make a Stockholm syndrome argument to claim all burqua wearers are by definition victims of abuse.

If the state steps in and puts a restraining order between a women and her abuser is that telling her how to live ? Is that big government ?It is government using its power based on a request from a citizen. The state doesn't just put in a restraining order on its own in such a case. You have to apply for one.

I find a lot of the burqua bashing reminds me of the tales about Jews and their funny hats, their funny foods and their secret conspiracy to subjugate the rest of us.

The only problem with a burqua from a legal sense is the need for facial identification, such as in photo IDs. You can certainly require people keep their faces uncovered in situations like walking into banks or casinos, but it shouldn't be hard to come up with something reasonable. Banning certain types of clothing is for high school.

It seems odd that one would be against the registration of weapons that can easily be used to kill people, but want certain clothes banned because they have decided they symbolize something bad.

Reading all these Libertarians is a little frightening. Interesting how Quebec essentially spiked all their arguments?

Want service from the Govt you have to identify yourself. That means open the burqa/niquab so the clerk or other official can verify your identification. Otherwise wearing these garments is unrestricted.

Yeah... there is a bunch of people out there with an irrational fear of an inanimate object... and not the person holding it.Who exactly has this "irrational fear". I've heard this canard before to try and there is even a clinical sounding name for this phobia. When in reality, it is always a fear of people using said inanimate objects.

It's like someone saying they have a fear of flying. Well no, they really don't, a more precise wording for the pedantic would be they have a fear of crashing and dying in the crash.

The simple fact that it can be used as a weapon as a large determining factor in banning it means we should also ban knives, cars, trees and rocks.... Should we ban or register rocks instead of banning stoning to death?This is the standard canard of the "any gun anywhere for anyone" crowd. When they smirk about banning knifes, everyone is supposed to think of a butter knife or maybe a steak knife.

But the reality is, we do ban some knifes. A switchblade is a prohibited weapon, covered by the same law that covers machine guns and rocket launchers.

The determination for banning is based on how much harm can be done with it, how easily such harm can be done, and how many other uses completely unrelated to harming people there are. So a switchblade, which is of little use other than for stabbing people in a simple quick motion is a prohibited weapon. Likewise machine guns. While something that has other reasonable uses, such as cars and hunting rifles are more appropriately permitted but registered, so that abuses can be tracked down.

Shandow, for defending one's family and property from other citizens, perhaps not, but for defending one's family and property from the government, absolutely.

A government should fear its people.Wow, it really is NRA day today. So we should not prohibit machine guns and assault weapons because we need to defend ourselves from our government? You've got to be kidding.

So you would want to have a supply of Stingers in your garage just in case you need to shoot down a few of those F-35s we are buying? The argument becomes even more ludicrous in the United States, where the government can lob hydrogen bombs at you. You would need to keep ABM systems legal for the public, so you can have a Patriot battery in your back yard in case you need to shoot down a thermonuclear missile? Sheeesh!

How is their widespread use "directly linked to a lack of respect for women and their rights".

In countries where high heel shoes are worn can women not drive. not go anywhere without a male relative, and not own property ? Do they have no legal standing under the law and are they required to produce four witnesses to prosecute a rape charge ??

The difference is obvious.

"That sort of view "can be directly linked to a lack of respect for women and their rights" as you put it."

Nice pot shot buddy. Leaving aside your unfortunate personal attacks I think you have zero understanding of the ideological beliefs associated with the wearing of the burqua.

It is not the mark of mainstream Islam and groups that wear it or promote it do indeed teach their children from a very young age a set of beliefs that are hostile to women.

"Many victims of domestic abuse "choose" to remain with their abusers.

"But the reality is, we do ban some knifes. A switchblade is a prohibited weapon, covered by the same law that covers machine guns and rocket launchers."

And yet still very useful. I do carry a knife that I can open with 1 hand. It is basically illegal under that same law. But very useful when trying to hold up what I am working on and still get the tool open. It's never been out of my pocket in anyone's presence but a co worker... (who carries the same one for the same job).

There is no need to have it out in a tense situation. I read once in a Tom Clancy novel: There is always someone stronger, more skilled, meaner.... If you are in a tussle with someone with enough skill to beat you to a pulp.... he probably also has enough skill to take the knife away from you too. If you take a weapon to a fight you deserve to be hurt.

But as to my illegal knife.... you are a member of the tough on crime law and order (when it suits your agenda of hate for conservative people) left wing... Put me in jail while you let others run free for fear of infringing on "their rights".

"It seems odd that one would be for the registration of weapons that can easily be used to kill people," but so against stopping the cause of crime. The person holding the tool.

"This mess is not a WikiLeaks problem, nor a Canadian military problem, nor a Canadian government problem. It is a problem with the Canadian media – Ottawa-centric, conspiracy-embracing, unquestioning and unskeptical so long as the information seems damaging to the government, too quick to publish and, of course, absolutely without a shred of accountability. Shame on us."

One more Opinion columnist gets it....

But how many retractions do you think we will see??? ... one more media coverup. They have moved on to the next "story" (which peter so kindly hotlinked) which they think they can damage the government with. Tell me Peter, do you think that the one you linked will turn into another scandal that was just made up based on some flimsy evidence that only pointed to the conclusion they made up in passing??

I find it interesting that the burka conversation focuses on the rights of women. That is the politically correct argument.

I think that the true argument is that the burka is just plain scary.

If the Black Bloc wanted to create a panic they would have worn burka's to their anarchists party in Toronto.

The violence would have escalated and the police would have reacted much more directly to the threat.

The fellow travelers at the G20 protests (unionists , legitimate peaceful anti-globalists) would have cleared the streets and worked against the Black Burkas unlike their assistance in providing cover to the Black Bloc.

When there is a terrorist action in Toronto (or Montreal) it will almost be certain that a burka will be part of the story.

We are not fighting a war in Afghanistan for womens rights. We are keeping the terrorists busy so they can't run camps for the nice Toronto kids that feel a need to blow up the CN tower.

We could leave Afghanistan today if we had the political will and courage to promise and deliver on a 2 week shock and awe campaign every time a terrorist training camp was found. The tribal leaders would pull back on their global outlook and be satisfied in terrorizing their daughters and nieces and every once in a while a minority they can beat up on.

The West (I am including Ontario, Quebec and Europe) is comfortable with that throughout the non-threatening third world.

No organization with a half-competent communications department would ever condone wikipedia editing from its offices on issues that are tied publicly to those offices.

Wikipedia tracks the IP address of every edit, and makes them public. Really, you can go look at the IP address of every edit ever made on Wikipedia for the last 9.5 years - (it went live in January 2001).

And they've released details like these to the press before, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

That alone, I think, would be evidence that the Canadian government didn't intentionally try to skew wikipedia.

There are groups who do that (particularly on pages relating to climate change), but no organisation with ny concern for its public image would dare.

Hey BCVOR the problem with Kevin Page is that he updates his forecast every few months!

Where as finance updates about twice a year and bank of Canada revises their outlook a bit more often but not as much as Page.

So of course he's usually "right" when you compare his update using the latest figures to an update made 6 months ago. If you actually go back to his old update though he's just as wrong as everyone else, or even more wrong.

The single time he was close to being right was in the fall of 08 where Flaherty said there wouldn't be a deficit and Page said there would be a small one.

Almost every economist was caught off guard by how quickly things fell apart. Page was marginally more correct than Flaherty.

After that Flaherty predicted a robust recovery and Page predicted a slow one. Flaherty was accused of wearing "rose coloured glasses".

Ever since fall of '08 Kevin Page has been way too NEGATIVE. The guy is a one trick pony.

Finance or the BOC are much better forecasters than the PBO.

Kevin Page has long since been discredited to everyone except certain members of the news media. Even they don't talk about him all that much these days!

Ahem, the deficit would be tamed with a DRASTIC increase in EI & CPP taxes. Yes, those are taxes as they are collected by the government for government run programs. If you say they are not then you better have never called the 'eco-fee' in Ontario a tax.

As a reminder - the CPC has decided to skyrocket EI fees by 35% despite it being in deficit only once in the past 15+ years, and having a $50 billion+ surplus if you just add up what has been collected vs what has been spent for EI.

"increase in EI & CPP taxes. Yes, those are taxes as they are collected by the government for government run programs"

One can somewhat reasonably make that claim for EI premiums since they go into the government's consolidated revenue.

CPP is more problematic. While it is a forced payment used partially for wealth distribution, it does not go into consolidated revenue. And any increase in the premiums is most definitely NOT a deficit-taming measure.

There are taxes, there are fees, there are premiums, there are mandatory contributions, there are levies, etc etc.

Yes they all involve the forced expropriation of wealth.

However, they are not euphemisms (as you seem to suggest).

Proper terms provide crucial information as to how the money is collected and how it is used.

In this case proper terminology tells us that the money being collected well be held in reserve and then given back to us should we need it (insurance). It is not being taken and spent on frivilous programs of dubious benefit (most government spending).

Dropping context to call things a "tax" because the word has a negative connotation is indeed cynical and disingenuous.

John is promoting economic illiteracy to score partisan cheap shots.

You seem to be doing the same but for a different reason - to push your own small government ideology.

While I am generally sympathetic to your positions I do not enjoy people being ignorant for the sheer sake of it.

How is their widespread use "directly linked to a lack of respect for women and their rights".It isn't, except in your misstatement of my words. If you reread the comment it should be clear I was referring to your claim that what burqua wearers think or say about it is of no consequence. Even if they say they choose to wear it, it is of no consequence, according to you.

In countries where high heel shoes are worn can women not drive. not go anywhere without a male relative, and not own property ? Do they have no legal standing under the law and are they required to produce four witnesses to prosecute a rape charge??

The difference is obvious.Of course your can easily demolish your own straw man. But the point is, claiming that wearing a piece of clothing is prima facie evidence of abuse is ridiculous. Just as making the same claim based on the wearing of certain footwear is ridiculous. You can certainly use what someone wears to form an opinion, but without trying to determine why the person wears said piece of clothing or footwear, you are dismissing that person's point of view as being of "no consequence".

"That sort of view "can be directly linked to a lack of respect for women and their rights" as you put it."

Nice pot shot buddy. Leaving aside your unfortunate personal attacks I think you have zero understanding of the ideological beliefs associated with the wearing of the burqua.Nice pot shot yourself. You are very skilled at misstating someone's view, then arguing against that misstatement, then taking any disagreement with you as a an "unfortunate personal attack". You then take the cake by making that itself into a personal attack.You have done this kind of condescending sneering in every thread I have seen you comment in.

It is not the mark of mainstream Islam and groups that wear it or promote it do indeed teach their children from a very young age a set of beliefs that are hostile to women.True, but your premise is that the wearing of a burqua is a case closed proof that the wearer is being abused. That premise is faulty.

"Many victims of domestic abuse "choose" to remain with their abusers.

(estimates range from a quarter to a third).Your claim is that the views of burqua wearers is of no consequence, and you bolstered this by claiming many abused people stay with their abusers. I pointed out there are degrees of abuse and the article you cite confirms that, since they estimate a quarter of abused people stay in their relationships. How they made said estimate is unclear, and what bar they used to determine abuse is not stated. I don't see anywhere in the article any support for your view that someone's views are of no consequence because they are abused.

"I don't think you can make a Stockholm syndrome argument to claim all burqua wearers are by definition victims of abuse."

Anyone wearing a burqua is by definition being abused, as the very act of wearing it is abuse.No, it isn't. Your say so does not make it so. In fact you comment on burquas being used as disguises, are such people wearing it abused too?

(continued)Even if they are no longer in contact with their husbands/fathers it doesn't matter. It is the harmful lingering effect of learning a women hating ideology and they need psychological counselling.No argument there, but you have not proven your premise that wearing a burqua is, in itself, without any other corroboration, proof the wearer is being abused.

"The state doesn't just put in a restraining order on its own in such a case. You have to apply for one."

No. Not at all. It is common for a judge to automatically order a restraining order as a term of probation or bail, even if the women does NOT want it.I was referring to restraining orders on their own, not as part of a bail condition. You were asking if said restraining order is "big government" "telling her how to live". Of course the judicial system can and does tell people how to live with bail conditions, probation and incarceration. I assumed your rhetorical question was outside of the judicial system, or are you now going to claim the judicial system and its remedies are all part of the nanny state big government?

Rhianna and Chris Brown being the most famous example - she was crushed when the state said he had to stay away from her.Thank you for conceding the argument. When you have to invoke famous people and the statements released by their publicists, you are admitting defeat.

"a lot of the burqua bashing reminds me of the tales about Jews and their funny hats"

Nice. You've now managed to suggest sexism and now anti-religious bias as my motives in objecting to the burqua ...It could be, and you took it personally even though it was clearly not directed specifically at you. That kind of taking it personally does speak to your motives, while my statement does not. It is simply a statement of fact. Read some of the old canards about Jews and their customs, especially from the 1930s, and you will see parallels with the canards about Muslims and their customs.

Don't bother with a reponse if you're just going to lace it with more personal attacks.Spare me your manufactured outrage. And spare me your personal attacks, couched as reaction to supposed personal attacks on you.

I just wanted to correct a few factual errors on your part Liberal Supporter.No problem. You corrected some wording, but you have not corrected any factual errors.And your premise, that wearing a burqua is a prima facie case that the wearer is being abused, remains refuted. Or refudiated if you prefer.

While I am generally sympathetic to your positions I do not enjoy people being ignorant for the sheer sake of it.

These two people calling money collected by government for any reason "tax" are not being any of the things you claim. We're back to "fear of inanimate objects" being claimed about people who actually fear being shot deliberately or accidentally by someone wielding an inanimate object.

It is not unreasonable to call all money collected by a government "tax". Plus, no matter what you choose to call the money collected, it still goes in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is only through budget controls that money collected for one purpose is segregated (earmarked) for that purpose. It used to be gasoline taxes were treated this way, to pay for highways, then this changed. So any separation of funds you cite can be changed later too. This is why some people will continue to refer to the money collected as tax, regardless of promises to spend it in specific ways.

However, despite not attributing any motives to calling it all "tax", I agree with you on referring to it by the name it has been given since the name implies its purpose. Far from trying to obscure it as "not really a tax", calling it as named reminds anyone that it is not supposed to be treated as general revenue.

My personal beef is how people refer to money the government has as "our" money. For some reason, when I hand money to Canadian Tire, it becomes their money as soon as the currency leaves my hand. Yet people would claim the money they send to the government is still their own. It is not. The government is a business in this sense, they provide services and you pay for their services. If you don't like it you can leave, and even better, you can be politically active to change how much they charge and what they do.

And yet still very useful. I do carry a knife that I can open with 1 hand. It is basically illegal under that same law. But very useful when trying to hold up what I am working on and still get the tool open. It's never been out of my pocket in anyone's presence but a co worker... (who carries the same one for the same job).Basically or actually illegal? I don't think you need to worry. My chainsaw has never got me in trouble either, but I don't carry it down the main street of town with it running while wearing a mask.

There is no need to have it out in a tense situation. I read once in a Tom Clancy novel: There is always someone stronger, more skilled, meaner.... If you are in a tussle with someone with enough skill to beat you to a pulp.... he probably also has enough skill to take the knife away from you too. If you take a weapon to a fight you deserve to be hurt.Star Wars Episode 1: "There's always a bigger fish"!

But as to my illegal knife.... you are a member of the tough on crime law and order (when it suits your agenda of hate for conservative people) left wing...You're taking lessons from another commenter, I see. I just want to see all firearms registered, and the more deadly ones banned or heavily restricted. You did hear about the collector in Toronto a few of months ago, whose arsenal was stolen? They found the thieves, but many of the guns are still missing. Fortunately, they did recover the Uzi. Yes, the collector had an Uzi. What is the necessity argument for this lawyer to have 170 guns, including an Uzi?

Put me in jail while you let others run free for fear of infringing on "their rights".You forgot to mention I support terrorists, child pornographers and honour killing. What is so difficult about registering all firearms? Why do you promote such a silly canard that anyone left of you wants to do such foolish things?

"It seems odd that one would be for the registration of weapons that can easily be used to kill people," but so against stopping the cause of crime. The person holding the tool.Usually the tool is the one doing the selective quoting. In this case, my juxtaposition was of people who are against registration of weapons and also in favour of clothing bans. Your misstatement makes the false claim that I do not wish to stop people from misusing tools, ie. weapons. Registering all firearms makes people who own them more careful to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands. That's the prevention side, which also includes the ban on home nuclear weapons. I don't think you'll find me speaking in favour of not prosecuting criminals. Though you will find me strongly in favour of due process and presumption of innocence, which some consider as being somehow soft on crime.

You make some fair points about nomenclature. However the situation is perhaps not quite as clear as you suggest.

Most taxes are used to pay for government programmes (their utility or wastefulness is perhaps a separate debate).

The CPP "tax" is used to fund the government's programme of CPP benefits The EI "tax" is (to be) used to fund the government's programme of EI (and maternity, etc.) benefits.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to automatically exclude the "tax" label from CPP and EI simply because those funds are targeted to specific programmes.

All too often those "other" terms are, in fact, little more than a euphemism. I cannot see a serious argument that can claim that Dalton McGuinty's "health levy" is anything other than a tax under a different name.

My chainsaw has never got me in trouble either, but I don't carry it down the main street of town with it running while wearing a mask.

.... I don't ever remember doing that with my gun either....

"What is the necessity argument for this lawyer to have 170 guns, including an Uzi?"

....cept he didn't have ammo. The Uzi.... turned out to be a nice paper weight for the thieves no doubt... He's a collector. What is the argument for my mother to have 200 figurines???

"Why do you promote such a silly canard that anyone left of you wants to do such foolish things?"

Not all... but several people (including you) on the left seem to allude to and support some of such things when they argue with me, when I read columns, when I watch TV. If you don't like the generalization I suggest you work to correct it, rather than reinforce it.

"What is so difficult about registering all firearms?"

Why does it need to be done?? License the owner to own them. If he is responsible there is no need.. if he isn't... then you shouldn't license him. But in the current system I feel no need to give the government information on the last 5 relationships I was in, have each of those women sign (yes, apparently the rules are different for men, since it isn't a requirement for them).

Either the owner is a responsible owner or not. And as for the break in... Perhaps if the justice system was about one of: Justice, Punishment, or Rehabilitation it wouldn't happen, but the system is broken. It should be able to protect people from just such break-in's. Crime is way too high. (don't BS me that it is going down,... REPORTED crime is going down. And even then it is still 3 times higher than what my Dad dealt with growing up. Imagine if every crime was reported)

"To use an employers computers, whether a public or private employer is irrelevant, for personal activities on the web constitutes both an ethical and moral offense and possibly a criminal one.

These machines are provided to enable one to do their job, not engage in personal activities."

And yet in a week when the Tory government decides to fire the offenders you will be one of the first to stand up and decry the government for being so hard on the common man who is only trying his hardest to work.

"For some reason, when I hand money to Canadian Tire, it becomes their money as soon as the currency leaves my hand. Yet people would claim the money they send to the government is still their own. It is not."

When I go to Canadian tire I get to choose whether I want an item at the price they offer it at.

When I deal with the government they take my money... and then decide what they will give me later.... whether it is useful to me, whether I want it... or not.

It is my money (our money). If any real business did it that way one would call it theft.

"If you don't like it you can leave"

.... Ah that good ol left wing tolerance.... I can only assume you will cease complaining about the things that the tory government has done you do not agree with and exit the country quietly, yes??

"If you don't like it you can leave, and even better, you can be politically active to change how much they charge and what they do."

Hmmmm the rest of the sentence,... seems to be at odds with the first. No matter tho, I don't have time to be a political organizer. I like everyone else have to choose my priorities. I do not have 150 hours each day to devote to every cause that I have a passing fancy for. It is why we vote to place delegates (or designates, depending on your philosophy) into parliament to make decisions along the lines of the platform they chose to run on.

But since you think you have time for every cause you might care about I suggest you do that volunteering after your 30-45 jobs... you know growing your food, building your computer, your car, building your house, building your roads, teaching at the school, being a doctor, a police officer, run the gun registry....etc etc, you know... all the things you care about that you want to see done to your exact specifications. Should be easy. Just get involved, right?

Shadow, what about the federal debt. The EI fund was used to make it look smaller than it really was for years - the CPC could easily state that they are against the theft of billions from working people and put that $50 billion back in and take it away from general revenues. After all, it was the EI fund and all it was used for was to cut the net debt. However, they choose instead to skyrocket the rate by enough that there will be a strong disincentive to hire anyone making a salary near minimum wage, but no disincentive to hire people at $100k plus as those people tend to be on contract thus avoiding EI/CPP fees.

Thus massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Canadians and businesses will continue, paid for by skyrocketing EI fees so the $50 billion that was collected will never be paid back. This will be a drag on the economy as businesses avoid hiring lower income people who then will not be paying income tax, but instead be on EI (until benefits run out) or welfare.

No matter how you cut it, the CPC decided that the $50 billion collected was better spent on high income people than on those who it was collected from/for.

Of course, that helps me as I make a fair amount and the areas they cut taxes are a plus for me personally. However, I know bad policy when I see it and this is extremely bad policy - from the ethics of claiming to cut taxes when you are skyrocketing them, to how it will affect the economy, to how it affects those who are on the margins of society.

There has not been a single government in the history of anything that has found a way to exist without taking money from some kind of transaction or resources that belongs to someone else. (Except maybe that hippy commune in Denmark) Without this 'theft' you decry there's no civilization at all.

BTW Reading Lorrie Goldstein lately? Crime is shrinking both in Police reported and GSS indicated crimes. (Not that I'd see why a top line number based on samples, includes perceived crimes, and specifically indicated that most unreported were not serious enough to report would be more accurate) Just because there's more crimes than in the 60s, (Or just 'reported' in those days) doesn't mean it's not going in the right direction. (Rehab is insufficient though)

~~Re: Shadow

Generally the rule of thumb is that even if someone sees something someone's doing as abusive... if a person wants to do it to themselves we let them, and usually mind our own business. People can do a lot of things we don't approve of to themselves; drink crappy beer, get a strange piercing, have plastic surgery, whatever. It only ever matters when it effects someone else.

"You're required by law to wear a seatbelt. Marijuana is still illegal."

True and true. There are some public safety laws, some of which are bad and some of which are not bad, (But in my mind maybe not necessary) But there is some precendent for such an idea.

"Also I dispute the notion that women are doing this to themselves or freely choosing it."

Well, the thing about banning certain clothes is that the state assumes something that hasn't at all been proven and then punishes the supposed victim. The first element is prejudicial, and the second element is totally backwards.

It doesn't even do anything aside from deal with the visible evidence in the case that the presumption is actually correct.

I forgot to add that I don't feel that poor, suggestive, stifling, humiliating choice in outdoor clothing really compares in scale as a personal safety issue to existing public safety laws.

We don't require people to get sun, or wear t-shirts free of self-defreciating slogans, clean filthy clothes, or prevent Ti-Cats fans from wearing bags when the Argos beat them. All of these could have some of the negative effects of a burqa, but we don't have a problem with them.

And yet in a week when the Tory government decides to fire the offenders you will be one of the first to stand up and decry the government for being so hard on the common man who is only trying his hardest to work.

Eric can I please use the word BULLSHIT

Vandalism is vandalism, I don't care who commits it, they are guilty and deserve their just deserts !

Kevin I don't think its punishment to tell a woman she can't wear a burqua. The downside seems quite limited.

And the presumption that wearing it isn't a free, educated choice seems fair given what we know about the ideological forces behind the burqua.

Its a little like asking whether Britain was justified in abolishing slavery because maybe there was one or two people who liked being a slave.

"It doesn't even do anything aside from deal with the visible evidence"

Being seen as an individual by society has a powerful effect. The ability to connect face to face with others cannot be overstated.

To borrow from a phrase, this could be the crack that lets the light in.

"I forgot to add that I don't feel that ... humiliating choice in outdoor clothing really compares ... to existing public safety laws."

In terms of personal harm probably not. However, there are issues around being able to identify individuals, the hiding of bombs/weapons under the burqua, and men putting on a burqua to commit crimes.

We do ban gang clothing and the symbols of terrorist organizations. Given the burqua's role in suicide bombings in the middle east and robberies in the UK there could be a legitimate legal issue here.

"We don't require people to get sun, or wear t-shirts free of self-defreciating slogans, clean filthy clothes, or prevent Ti-Cats fans from wearing bags when the Argos beat them. All of these could have some of the negative effects of a burqa, but we don't have a problem with them."

We do have some limited requirements that people actually wear clothing. I believe offensive clothing can get you in trouble with human rights tribunals. And certain gang colours and terorrist symbols have been banned.

Even if one does not support a burqua ban one must surely agree that the things are abusive to women.They certainly can be, but your argument was that the simple act of wearing one is conclusive proof the wearer is being abused. That is not the case.

cept he didn't have ammo.Do you have a source for that? It's not like 9mm or .45 ammo would be unusually difficult to obtain.

The Uzi.... turned out to be a nice paper weight for the thieves no doubt...They were probably saving it for their own use, they sold off a few dozen run of the mill handguns.

He's a collector. What is the argument for my mother to have 200 figurines???If someone steals 200 figurines and peddles them to gangsters, you won't find the hospitals full of people in critical condition with figurine wounds. We often hear the argument that some people need guns for hunting and for home personal protection, and I have no problem with that. But you don't need 170 guns to protect your home unless your "home" is a biker clubhouse.

Not all... but several people (including you) on the left seem to allude to and support some of such things when they argue with me, when I read columns, when I watch TV. If you don't like the generalization I suggest you work to correct it, rather than reinforce it.Could you cite some examples where the "left" wants to "let others run free for fear of infringing on 'their rights'" ? I have only see right wingers promote this view and demand some lefty defend it. And I refuse to "work to correct" your false generalizations, they are your false generalizations, not mine. You are free to make them, and I am free to mock them.

Why does it need to be done?? License the owner to own them. If he is responsible there is no need.. if he isn't... then you shouldn't license him.So you would scrap the car registry? After all the drivers are all supposed to be licensed, right? Do you support scrapping the car registry? What about the boat registry? What about the airplane registry? Should we stop registering people? What about counting the people? Oops scratch that last question we already know where the CPC is going with that.

But in the current system I feel no need to give the government information on the last 5 relationships I was in, have each of those women sign (yes, apparently the rules are different for men, since it isn't a requirement for them).Do they want that background info for registering the gun owner or the gun?

I am certainly with you that the rules should be the same for men or women though.

Perhaps if you worked to correct the generalization that those who don't like the registry are hillbillies, you'd see a lot more flexibility on removing clearly bad parts of the law (such as men having to get ex's to sign while women do not).

And as for the break in... Perhaps if the justice system was about one of: Justice, Punishment, or Rehabilitation it wouldn't happen, but the system is broken.It is not broken.

It should be able to protect people from just such break-in's.No system can do this conclusively.

Crime is way too high. (don't BS me that it is going down,... REPORTED crime is going down.Yes, the voluntary reporting system is a problem.

And even then it is still 3 times higher than what my Dad dealt with growing up. Imagine if every crime was reported.Lots of assaults were never reported back in Dad's day. Lots of rapes were never reported then too. A quick search found Murder from 1950-2007 in the US. It would seem the murder rate in the 2000s is about the same as in the 1960s. Even comparing the worst and best years, you can only get 2.5 times higher if you compare the extremes of 1954 and 1980.

It certainly seems like crime is much higher today, but this is mainly because there are more people, so more crime, and if you read the Sun as I do, it seems like we're in a war zone.Still, the fact remains that registration of firearms can be a useful tool in preventing them falling in the wrong hands.

It is my money (our money). If any real business did it that way one would call it theft.Enforcement of a contract certainly looks that way. But it is not your money once they have it.

"If you don't like it you can leave"

.... Ah that good ol left wing tolerance.... I can only assume you will cease complaining about the things that the tory government has done you do not agree with and exit the country quietly, yes??I was pointing out that you in fact do have a choice about paying taxes. It may not be a good one, but it is there. They provide services, you pay. It can be viewed as being a contract. As for "good ol left wing tolerance", thank you for confirming that telling someone to leave the country if they don't like it is bad. Usually it is the right winger who tells me I can leave, and they'll even buy me a ticket if I'll just leave. Of course in that case it is because I want a government with different priorities than the current regime, and some folks would like me to leave so I can't vote their preferred government out. However, in this case, I was simply pointing out that paying taxes is not something you have no choice about.

No matter tho, I don't have time to be a political organizer.Nobody asked you to. You are already being "politically active" by commenting here. Presumably you vote in elections, and as you say, you can vote for those who will do things more the way you prefer than their opponents.

But since you think you have time for every cause you might care aboutThis making stuff up routine seems to be a habit. First it was claiming there was no ammo for the Uzi, then claiming that crime was 3 times lower in Dad's time, now it is me thinking I can run the country single-handedly to my exact specifications. I think on the last point you are confusing me with Stephen Harper.

And the presumption that wearing it isn't a free, educated choice seems fair given what we know about the ideological forces behind the burqua.You could claim most wearing of religious garb isn't a free, educated choice. Can a Sikh really function in their community without a turban? Can an Orthodox Jew without a kipa? The social pressures are strong in all these cases. The fact remains you have not made the case that merely wearing a burka is conclusive proof the wearer is being abused.

Its a little like asking whether Britain was justified in abolishing slavery because maybe there was one or two people who liked being a slave.Funny, I think I've read that argument someplace, that slaves somehow liked being slaves. Of course I also recall the guy years ago telling me how in the Soviet Union they are "free" from having to worry about deciding anything for themselves.

But your parallel doesn't really hold, since it is based on a presumption that wearing a burka is in itself proof someone is being abused.

In terms of personal harm probably not. However, there are issues around being able to identify individuals, the hiding of bombs/weapons under the burqua, and men putting on a burqua to commit crimes.True, but banning a particular piece of clothing does not solve this. Would you ban backpacks, since they can hold bombs too? The only real ban required with burkas is to demand to be able to see someone's face, when entering buildings or dealing with the government.

I think you alluded to reasonableness earlier in this thread. I should be able to go about my business in a ski mask, but I would have to remove it to go indoors or even on demand. So again, there is the parallel with gun laws. If you support registering the person only and not the gun, then you should support a ban on hiding ones face and not the clothing.

It is indeed the case because the burqua ITSELF is abusive to women. I'm not alleging any other form of abuse nessecarily exists at all.No, in itself it is not.

Simply wearing a burqua is to be abused.Baloney.

To rephase your bizzare statement with another example:

"Female genital mutilation certainly can be abusive, but your argument was that the simple act of having your genitals mutilated is conclusive proof the victim is being abused. That is not the case. ".

What a silly premise.

If I attend a costume party and I wear a burka, I am not and have not been abused. If I attend a costume party with my genitals mutilated, I have been abused.

I can wear a burka and then decide not to wear one. I can't unmutilate my genitals. You're really reaching now.

Stand up for women, K ?I do. You are the one who is playing judge and jury that simply wearing a certain piece of clothing is proof by definition of abuse.You are the one who believes you know better than numerous women whose views you say are of no consequence.Presumably you would forcibly remove the burka from anyone wearing one?

Liberal Supporter the idea that the experience of a muslim women wearing a burqua can be compared to you taking one on and off at a costume party is laughable.Too bad you had to make stuff up to get your laugh. I provided the costume party example to counter your claim that all burqua wearers are being abused. Since I can wear a burqua and not be abused, your point is refuted.

Being completely cut off from meaningful interaction with the rest of Canadian society is no costume party.True, but irrelevant.

Suffering in the heat of summer is no costume party.True, but irrelevant.

Coming down with seasonal affective disorder, brittle bones, and certain types of cancer because of zero sun exposure in the winter is no costume party.True, but irrelevant.

Being required to wear a burqua everytime you leave the house IS an abuse of women.Being forbidden to wear a burqua is also an abuse of women.

Yes, this alone, in and of itself, this lifestyle, it is to be abused and it is abusive.You appear to have changed your position, now it is "being required to wear a burqua" is abuse. Before you claimed that simply wearing one, regardless of the reason, is a prima facie case of abuse.

I'm honestly completely at a loss how you could argue otherwise.It's hard to argue when you keep moving the goalposts.

Funny, most people assume that barbaric cultural practices are not compatible with a "liberal" society.True, but simply wearing a burqua is not a barbaric cultural practice. Costime parties are not barbaric cultural practices, remember?

Got any more talking points to bolster your position that women need to be told what to do (or not to do) for their own good?

Then we should also pass a law against Hassidic Jews wearing long black coast and fur hats in the summer.I recall in grade school wondering why the desert people wore long sleeves and were nearly completely covered in the desert. The teacher explained that the clothing is loose so air can circulate. Deserts are dry heat, you need to avoid prolonged direct sun exposure, but covered, your body's sweat system will work very well to keep you from overheating.

Liberal Supporter I see no further value in continuing this conversation.

Your need to minimize, deflect, and explain away the evil that is the burqua is perplexing.

Its become clear you're either being obstinate for the sake of it or you have a personal attachment to the burqua.

Your argument thus far has literally boiled down to this:

Slavery isn't so bad and some slaves like it! So its not always evil and its wrong to choose to ban slavery for others, they can make up their own minds !!

On the face of it this argument is so clearly flawed that it merits no further engagement.

I'll have long since quit this topic and this thread but feel free to respond none the less.

I have no doubt you will take me up on the offer, if you are being obstinate for its own sake you'll likely want the last word.

And if you do have a personal attachment you'll likely feel the need to further apologize for the burqua for the benefit of others who are reading this thread.

I mention this only so that you will not waste so much of your time crafting your response (thus far they have been very, very long (unnecessarily so).

Also the bizarre, insider baseball style criticisms of people's rhetoric (moving the goal posts ? appeal to authority ? what is this a first year philosophy class ?) and the personal insults you like to include in your discourse will have missed their mark (as I won't be reading them) and will serve to only make you look petty and odd.

Liberal Supporter I see no further value in continuing this conversation.Then you'll go away?

Your need to minimize, deflect, and explain away the evil that is the burqua is perplexing.Your need to call the burqua evil is astonishing.

Its become clear you're either being obstinate for the sake of it or you have a personal attachment to the burqua.It couldn't be that I see things more clearly than you do could it? Is that a possibility?

Your argument thus far has literally boiled down to this:Let me get some popcorn, so I can enjoy watching you lie about what I say.

Slavery isn't so bad and some slaves like it! So its not always evil and its wrong to choose to ban slavery for others, they can make up their own minds !!Interesting, I never said such a thing. Why are you a liar?

On the face of it this argument is so clearly flawed that it merits no further engagement.Awww, I wanted to watch you argue against your own straw man. It's usually pretty hilarious to watch.

I'll have long since quit this topic and this thread but feel free to respond none the less.Thank you for conceding.

I have no doubt you will take me up on the offer, if you are being obstinate for its own sake you'll likely want the last word.Thank you for conceding.

And if you do have a personal attachment you'll likely feel the need to further apologize for the burqua for the benefit of others who are reading this thread.So now I am a burqua apologist. What a silly claim. Do you have any other names to call me, simply because I don't agree with your claim that the mere wearing of a burqua is a prima facie case of abuse?

I mention this only so that you will not waste so much of your time crafting your response (thus far they have been very, very long (unnecessarily so).I will make my responses as long as I wish. You don't get to order me around, nor do you get to tell women what they must or must not wear. You just don't seem to get that you are not in charge and others have different views.

Also the bizarre, insider baseball style criticisms of people's rhetoric (moving the goal posts ? appeal to authority ? what is this a first year philosophy class ?) and the personal insults you like to include in your discourse will have missed their mark (as I won't be reading them) and will serve to only make you look petty and odd.Spare me your fake lack of understanding of the names for the various rhetorical devices that you use daily. I'm sure you'd love to argue with someone who will follow all of your commands as to how they should respond to you. Because only by wholeheartedly agreeing with your views would anyone be able to escape your sneering condescension, your pathetic insults, and your fake outrage whenever anyone calls you on your lies.

It's pretty funny seeing you whine about me insulting you, when you do this to everyone you talk to in most threads here.

Good luck then.Good luck to you too. Maybe someday you'll win an argument with me.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.